Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T21:17:32.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Greek identity and education in the seventeenth century: Theophilos Korydalleus’ political movement in the Orthodox East

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2022

Vasileios Tsiotras Open the ORCID record for Vasileios Tsiotras [Opens in a new window]  and
Vasileios Syros Open the ORCID record for Vasileios Syros [Opens in a new window]
Vasileios Tsiotras
Affiliation:
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki tsiotras@edlit.auth.gr
Vasileios Syros
Affiliation:
Jawaharlal Nehru University/The Medici Archive Project syros@medici.org
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At the beginning of the seventeenth century the Athenian philosopher Theophilos Korydalleus launched a political programme intended to reinvigorate Hellenic culture and education in South-Eastern Europe as a core element of Greek Orthodox identity. Korydalleus’ ideas on political intervention in the educational affairs of the Orthodox Greeks are recorded in one of his public speeches as well as in his private letters. In these texts it is possible to trace the emergence of a group of loyalists and disciples, who worked together in a political movement: a ‘party of friends’. This article presents and discusses sources which have been overlooked or have received little scholarly attention. It identifies the characteristics and the ideological underpinnings of this movement from a political, religious, and educational perspective and analyses Korydalleus’ views on contemporary political developments.

Keywords

Theophilos KorydalleusNeo-AristotelianismGreek identityrevival of Hellenic culture
Type
Article
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , October 2023 , pp. 198 - 217
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham

Introduction

The reorganization in the 1620s of the Patriarchal Academy of Constantinople, which served as a model institution of higher education for the Greek-speaking Orthodox East, was, according to Paschalis M. Kitromilides, ‘the first conscious programme of cultural reconstruction undertaken by the leadership of Greek Orthodox population since the Fall of Constantinople’.Footnote 1 The two key figures who spearheaded this ambitious initiative were the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril I Loukaris (1572–1638) and the Athenian philosopher Theophilos Korydalleus (1574–1646). Their endeavours in the field of education were designed to promote the independence of the Eastern Church from the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and especially of the Jesuits. The Jesuits had developed solid educational structures in Constantinople, in the Aegean, and in Asia Minor, where they taught the sciences and tried to bring Orthodox youth closer to Catholicism. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the educational institutes of the Catholic Church, such as the Greek College of St Athanasios (Collegio Greco) in Rome, attracted the Greek-speaking youth, not only from regions under Venetian control but also from the Ottoman Empire.Footnote 2 At the same time, the actions of Roman Catholic missionaries were intertwined with the conflicting interests and policies of the European powers in Ottoman lands: Catholic and Protestant countries were vying for influence over the Ecumenical Patriarchate.Footnote 3

Korydalleus’ Aristotelianism has been viewed as the extension and application of the philosophy of the Italian thinker Cesare Cremonini (1550–1631) who repudiated the authority of the Scholastics and the theological interpretation of Aristotle.Footnote 4 Through his teaching activities at the Patriarchal Academy (1622–41), Korydalleus managed to organize the upper course of philosophy and sciences by officially introducing Neo-Aristotelian philosophy as the foundation of Greek higher education. His curriculum marked a significant change and development, which laid strong ‘emphasis on logic, physics, and the study of generation and corruption’.Footnote 5 Korydalleus’ works, most of which are commentaries on Aristotle, are informed by an empirical approach and a rational understanding of the natural world. They were used as teaching manuals in institutions of higher education in the Orthodox East, and hundreds of copies are extant around the world. Research since the publication of Tsourkas’ seminal monograph, has hitherto focused on Korydalleus’ philosophical teachings.Footnote 6 Some scholars have considered the Aristotelian orientation as an obstacle that prevented the Greeks from keeping pace with scientific developments in Europe.Footnote 7 Recent studies have called for a more balanced evaluation of Korydalleus’ contribution to the revival of philosophical education. Neo-Aristotelianism can thus be construed as a transitional phase from the period that followed the fall of Constantinople to the Greek Enlightenment.Footnote 8

Earlier scholarship has primarily concentrated on Korydalleus’ contribution to Greek philosophy, and little attention has been paid to documents and testimonies related to his teaching and political activities in the Ionian Islands and the territories of the Venetian Republic.Footnote 9 This article will draw upon previous editions and studies of Korydalleus’ ‘private’ writingsFootnote 10 and will argue that Korydalleus was not only a philosopher and a teacher but an activist, keen to take political action in order to implement his educational programme.

Our goal here is to re-interpret Korydalleus’ private writings as part of a greater political project designed to revivify the authority of Hellenic culture and education in South-Eastern Europe. His ideas on political intervention in the educational affairs of the Orthodox Greeks are recorded in one of his public speeches as well as in letters sent to his followers and sympathizers. Through the examination of these texts it is possible to trace the emergence of a network of the like-minded individuals in Athens, Cephalonia, Zakynthos, Venice, and Constantinople, who worked together in what in one of his letters Korydalleus called ‘our own party’ (τοῦ κόμματος τοῦ ἐδικοῦ μας).Footnote 11 Although the term ‘party’ does not occur elsewhere in Korydalleus’ letters, it can serve as a starting point for investigating the political implications of his educational agenda: how it related to the policies of Patriarch Cyril Loukaris against the Catholics and how it aimed at strengthening the autonomy of Greek education in South-Eastern Europe and Asia Minor.

Korydalleus’ political programme: texts and testimonies

Korydalleus’ writings do not contain a fully articulated political theory, nor did he engage in the interpretation of Aristotle's Politics or Nicomachean Ethics. From his references to the Ethics, we can infer that he was familiar with that work, and on several occasions he cites specific passages containing to key Aristotelian concepts such as friendship and fear.Footnote 12 There is, however, no evidence that he wrote a treatise entitled Ethics.Footnote 13 On the other hand, in order to assess the overall orientation of Korydalleus’ thought it is important to bear in mind that his teacher, Cesare Cremonini, had not dealt with Aristotle's political philosophy, and that, as Tsourkas points out, ethics and politics were taught in another faculty of the University of Padua, the Law School.Footnote 14

Korydalleus’ political ideas can be gleaned from other of his writings which, as will be shown later, are related to a consistent political-educational programme. Particularly relevant in this context is his correspondence, which includes twenty-five private letters written in the period 1615–45;Footnote 15 a dedication letter ‘To the most noble and erudite Skarlatos’ (Σκαρλάτῳ τῷ πανευκλεεῖ ἀνδρὶ λογίῳ τε καὶ εὐγενεστάτῳ), in the Introduction to Geography and Astronomy (Σύνοψις εἰσαγωγικωτέρα εἰς γεωγραφίαν καὶ πρότερον εἰς θεωρίαν σφαιρικήν, 1622);Footnote 16 the letter-writing manual On Epistle Types (Περὶ ἐπιστολικῶν τύπων, 1625);Footnote 17 and a Funeral Oration (Λόγος εἰς κοιμηθέντας) for Poulcheria, the daughter of Michael Vlastos, the Grand Ecclesiarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (1640).Footnote 18 His private letters include a recommendation for his disciple Eugenios Giannoules (1595–1682) (Τοῖς ἐντευξομένοις ὁποιουδήποτε βαθμοῦ τε καὶ τάξεως σωτηρίαν ἐν Χριστῷ, 1639), which can be seen as a manifesto of Korydalleus’ party.Footnote 19

The political and religious objectives of Korydalleus’ programme

Korydalleus’ political agenda was shaped through close interaction with the programme of Cyril Loukaris to repel the infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church into the Orthodox East. The Ecumenical Patriarchate under Loukaris’ leadership (1620–38) turned into a major European political force during the Thirty Years War (1618–48) that engaged in political and religious diplomacy by forging alliances with Protestant nations, including England, Holland, and Geneva.Footnote 20 This policy at the central and regional level was implemented with the aid of a network of scholars associated with Korydalleus: the Aristotelian party. Korydalleus’ relationship with the officials of the Church of Rome passed quickly from the initial exploratory stage of acquaintance during his studies (1604–8) at the Collegio Greco of Rome to hostility after his voluntary departure from the College. This explains why the scribe of the Collegio Greco Chronicle called him ‘a pestiferous snake against the Church of Rome’ (serpente pestifero contro la Chiesa Romana).Footnote 21

Korydalleus’ opposition to Rome became more intense after he adopted the heterodox Aristotelianism of Cremonini, who taught at the University of Padua from 1609 until 1613. The official university of the Venetian Republic ‘was immune from the pressures and intervention of the Inquisition and of the court of Rome’.Footnote 22 As such, it had evolved into a centre of independent scientific thought as early as the sixteenth century, especially through the philosophical movement of the Alessandristi or New Aristotelianism.Footnote 23 Cremonini was targeted in 1608 by the Holy Inquisition for his Neo-Aristotelian views about the immortality of the soul and brought to trial.Footnote 24 Korydalleus studied (1609–12) within the ambit of this movement and embraced Cremonini's variant of Aristotelianism, which advocated the disentanglement of the study of philosophy from the Scholastic tradition. Korydalleus’ opposition to Rome was closely linked to Paduan Aristotelianism, which was based on the study of the original Greek texts of Aristotle and his commentators in Late Antiquity.

After his return to Athens in 1613/4, Korydalleus pursued various activities, taught philosophy, and, as indicated by an unpublished document dated from 1617, was elected to the communal council of Athens, under the presidency of the local Orthodox metropolitan.Footnote 25 His heterodox Aristotelianism, however, did not sit well with conservative circles in Athens. Moreover, his opposition to the pro-Catholic Ecumenical Patriarch Timotheos II (1612–20) made him out of favour with senior figures of the Patriarchate. Korydalleus sided with the anti-Catholic group that operated under the leadership of Cyril Loukaris, the Patriarch of Alexandria (1601–20).Footnote 26 As a result, he was accused of atheism and the dissemination of scandalous theological teachings:

Λέγοντας εἰς πολλοὺς ἐδῶθες πῶς ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν δὲν εἶναι, πῶς κόλασις καὶ παράδεισος δὲν εὑρίσκεται. Πῶς δὲν πρέπει νὰ ἐξομολογούμεσθεν εἰς ἀνθρώπους. ὅτι δὲν δύνονται νὰ <…> ἁμαρτίας. πῶς ὁ Χρυσόστομος εἶναι φλίκος [sic].Footnote 27

Καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν θνητὴν εἶναι φάσκει, καὶ μετεμψύχωσι δοξάζει, ὡς ὁ Πυθαγόρας. Τὴν τῶν ἁγίων εἰκόνων προσκύνησιν ἀθετεῖ, τὴν διὰ στόματος ἐξαγόρευσιν ἀπαγορεύει καὶ βδελύττεται […] οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἡμεῖς οἱ εὐσεβεῖς τὸ δεσποτικὸν σῶμα καὶ αἷμα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ λατρεύομεν, ὡς ἀληθὲς σῶμα καὶ αἷμα τοῦ κυρίου, ἀλλ’ ἀντίτυπον καλεῖ τοῦτο […] κακῶς ποιεῖσθαι τοὺς ἁγίους μάρτυρας ἐλέγχειν καὶ στηλιτεύειν τὴν τῶν ἀθέων εἰδωλολατρῶν παραπληξίαν τε καὶ ἀθεότητα.Footnote 28

He tells many people here that there is no resurrection of the dead, nor hell or paradise, and that we should not make our confession to men, because they cannot absolve us of our sins, that Chrysostom is insignificant and talkative.

He also claims that the human soul is mortal, while believing in reincarnation like Pythagoras. He repudiates the veneration of holy icons and he makes the sacrament of confession abominable and forbids it […]. He says that we the pious people do not worship rightly the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the true body and blood of the Lord, but he calls it a copy or sign. […] and that the holy martyrs, who refuted and castigated the insanity and atheism of the godless pagans, do wrong.

These accusations became a topos in subsequent controversies with Korydalleus and his followers. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that similar accusations of adopting Calvinist theology were made against Loukaris. The opinions ascribed to Korydalleus reflect the influence of Calvinism and exhibit significant divergence from authentic Orthodox theology: the rejection of icons, of sacramental confession and even of the Real Presence. It is safe to assume that by exhibiting a rather loose theological consciousness and willingness to make doctrinal concessions, Korydalleus was not interested in doctrinal precision or accuracy. Rather, he was looking for partners and allies in his struggle against Catholic propaganda, and, like Loukaris, he saw the Protestants in the West as a major asset.Footnote 29 He used Calvinist teachings as a weapon against the Orthodox clerics and preachers who had embraced Western Scholastic terminology and privileged the term transubstantiation (μετουσίωσις) over the Greek term μεταβολή. As such, he considered Calvinist theology to be identical with genuine Orthodoxy (‘Calvinism as Orthodoxy’).Footnote 30

Περί τε τῆς εὐχαριστίας, ὑπόθου μὲν τὰ κοινῇ λεγόμενα, διάστελλε δ’ ἀεὶ ὅτι τὰ πάντα πνευματικῶς ἐννοεῖται, καὶ οὐδὲν αἰσθητῶς ἢ σαρκικῶς· καντεῦθεν ἀποσκορακισθήσεται ἡ θεοστυγὴς μετουσίωσις.Footnote 31

As for the Eucharist, you should assume what is commonly said, but constantly make the distinction that everything is to be understood spiritually and not in terms of perception or in bodily terms; therefore that transubstantiation hateful to God will be sent packing.

Korydalleus left Athens and took refuge in 1620 in Cephalonia and later in Zakynthos, both of which were under Venetian rule. There, in a relatively liberal environment he taught philosophy to young people and strongly supported the anti-Catholic and pro-Protestant attitudes of Lοukaris, who, meanwhile, had appointed Ecumenical Patriarch (4 November 1620). In a series of passionate public speeches Korydalleus fervently defended his theological differentiation from the Catholics. As a result, he provoked the anger of the Catholics in Zakynthos, especially his former fellow students at the Collegio Greco. His conflict with Catholics on the island continued with increasing intensity in the late 1620s and early 1630s: both parties levelled insults and threats and even resorted to violence.Footnote 32 During that period, Korydalleus’ network had begun to take shape in Athens, and especially in Cephalonia and Zakynthos. His disciples and followers included Korydalleus’ first typographer Nikodemos Metaxas, his brother Ioannes Baptistes and Païsios Metaxas.Footnote 33 On 7 April 1621 Korydalleus wrote to Loukaris to congratulate him on his accession to the Ecumenical Throne; with Loukaris’ invitation to visit Constantinople the Korydalleus’ network was officially put in the service of the Patriarch.Footnote 34

The party was strengthened by Korydalleus’ move to the Patriarchal Academy of Constantinople (1621–2, 1625–8, 1636–40): new disciples and friends joined the faction and close links were forged with major figures in the Patriarchate and prominent members of the Greek-speaking elite. Among them were the grandee Skarlatos, the grandfather of Alexander Mavrocordatos, to whom Korydalleus dedicated the Introduction to Geography (1622); archon Demetrios Ioulianos, and his son Constantine; the Grand Ecclesiarch Michael Vlastos; Laurentios the Protosyncellus/chancellor of the Patriarchate; Postelnic Nikolaos; and Ioannes Karyophylles. Korydalleus took over the leadership of the Patriarchal Academy and taught philosophy and the sciences while defending Loukaris against his Catholic and Orthodox detractors.Footnote 35 He also encouraged his trusted disciple Karyophylles to write a short treatise against transubstantiation, ‘Citations from the Holy Bible and testimonies from the holy fathers of the Church, collected by Ioannes Byzantios, at the behest of the most wise teacher Korydalleus’ (Ἀποδείξεις ἀπὸ τῶν θείων λογίων καὶ μαρτυρίαι σχεδὸν παρὰ πάντων τῶν ἱερῶν διδασκάλων τῆς Ἐκκλησίας συλλεγεῖσαι κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ σοφωτάτου διδασκάλου Κορυδαλλέως ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Βυζαντίου).Footnote 36 The situation in the Ottoman capital was very complex, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate was embroiled in disputes with various European powers. Eventually, the pro-Catholic and anti-Protestant Orthodox circles prevailed and succeeded in ousting Loukaris and appointing his opponent Cyril Kontares (1633, 1635–6, 1638–9) as Ecumenical Patriarch. Loukaris was executed by the Ottomans on 27 June 1638. Korydalleus and his disciples, especially Eugenios Giannoules and Ioannes Karyophylles, were relentlessly persecuted by Patriarch Kontares and lost their positions and fiscal privileges.Footnote 37

Korydalleus and his followers were reinstated when Patriarch Kontares was dethroned (19 June 1639) and replaced by Patriarch Parthenios I ‘the Elder’ (17 July 1639). Korydalleus was reappointed Head of the Patriarchal Academy. He delivered a speech in praise of the new Patriarch in which he stated that he remained firmly committed to the ideas and the reform programme of the late Loukaris, since ‘his beliefs are a pillar of piety and the foundation of our Church’ (εἶναι στήλη τῆς εὐσεβείας, καὶ ἡ ἐκκλησία μας εἰς αὐτὰ θεμελιοῦται).Footnote 38 Yet his statements provoked a strong reaction, notably by the preacher Meletios Syrigos (1585/6–1663/4), who turned against him and caused his expulsion from the Patriarchal cathedral.Footnote 39 Korydalleus took refuge in the residence of the noble Demetrios Ioulianos, but Syrigos’ victory proved to be temporary, because the Athenian philosopher retained his office as scholarch at the Patriarchal Academy, and on 5 August 1640 he completed his Dogmatic Epistle in the Patriarchal premises and sent it the former dean of the Kiev Theological School Sofronij Počackij for publication.Footnote 40 A few months later, he was, however, discreetly removed from the Patriarchal Academy and appointed metropolitan of far-away Arta. Korydalleus accepted the new appointment, but soon resigned and moved back to Athens. Arta was for Korydalleus a contemptible place of exile, from which he was liberated with pleasure and obvious relief: in October 1642 he wrote to Constantine Ioulianos that ‘that exile was dissolved by which I had been enslaved me of my own free will, whether by God, or demon or some malicious man’ (τῆς κάκιστ’ ἀπολουμένης ἐκείνης ὑπερορίας, ἧς ἑκόντα δεδούλωκεν ἐλεύθερον ὄντα, οὐκ οἶδα πῶς εἴπω, Θεὸς ἢ δαίμων, ἢ βάσκανος ἄνθρωπος).Footnote 41 Undoubtedly, Korydalleus was planning to return to Constantinople. In Athens he taught philosophy and attracted many followers, including the monk Nektarios the Sinaite, later Patriarch of Jerusalem.

The core group of Korydalleus’ followers in Constantinople remained active, though they felt the absence of their spiritual mentor.Footnote 42 Karyophylles, who had in the meantime married the daughter of the Grand Chamberlain (Μέγας οἰκονόμος), had been appointed director of the Patriarchal Academy; Constantine Ioulianos became Grand logothete of the Patriarchate; Ioannikios became Metropolitan of Veria and later Patriarch of Alexandria; Photios became secretary and Grand Orator; Parthenios Ecumenical Patriarch; Neophytos Metropolitan of Adrianople; and Dionysios Metropolitan of Larissa. Korydalleus’ followers corresponded with him on a regular basis and sent him detailed information about the political and ecclesiastical developments in Constantinople.Footnote 43 Although Korydalleus’ faction had experienced setbacks, it was never eliminated, and its members held key positions in the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the political community of the Greeks in the Ottoman world. Syrigos, the leader of the anti-Korydallean faction, used all possible means to undermine Korydalleus’ followers and invented various accusations and allegations. He argued that they were heretical ‘natural theologians’, who interpreted transubstantiation according to the laws of nature. Karyophylles countered the accusations, defended his rejection of the term transubstantiation, and emphasized the spiritual meaning of change. According to a letter sent by Karyophylles to Giannoules:

Ὁ Συρίγος μαίνεται καθ’ ἡμῶν καὶ δόλους ῥάπτει καὶ τὴν γλῶσσαν ὡσεὶ ξυρὸν ἠκονημένον ἀφίησι κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας. ἀντιλέγομεν πολλάκις καὶ διὰ γραμμάτων καὶ δι’ ἑτέρων μέσων. πολλάκις ἰχθύων ἀφωνότερος ἔμεινεν ὁ ἀνόητος. τελευταῖον φυσικοὺς ἀλλὰ θεολόγους φησὶ τοὺς τοῦ Κορυδαλλέως ὀπαδοὺς εἶναι, περὶ οὗ πολὺν τὸν ἀγῶνα ἐνεστησάμην μὴ φυσικοὺς ἀλλὰ σαρκίνους καὶ λιθίνους τοὺς μετουσιαστὰς εἶναι ἀποδεικνύων διὰ πολλῶν, ἡμᾶς δὲ πνευματικοὺς καὶ πνευματικῶς τῷ Χριστῷ ἑνουμένους.Footnote 44

Syriros is furious against us and is a wicked schemer; he sets his tongue as a sharpened razor against the truth. Ι refute his words many times in writing and by other means. For the most part he is left as silent as a fish, the foolish man! Lately, he says that the followers of Korydalleus’ are natural philosophers and not theologians; on this issue I opposed him by demonstrating at length that believers in transubstantiation are not natural but made of flesh and stone, while we are spiritual and spiritually united with Christ.

The principles and organization of Korydalleus’ party

Korydalleus’ private correspondence contains valuable information about the operation of his party, which existed since at least the 1620s. His skills as a teacher captivated his listeners and attracted them to his movement.Footnote 45 His friends and followers were initially based in the cities where he taught, and gradually spread to other centres of the Orthodox East. They were aware that they constituted a distinct and close-knit ideological group (κόμμα), under the guidance of ‘the most wise’ (τοῦ σοφωτάτου) Korydalleus and bound together in close friendship. The designation ‘σοφώτατος’ was attached to Korydalleus, because he was perceived by his disciples as their venerable master.Footnote 46 They called each other friends (like-minded) and followers (ὀπαδοὶ) of Korydalleus: the terms friend (φίλος) and friendship (φιλία) occur thirty-one times in the surviving letters. The use of these expressions indicates a spiritual bond. According to Korydalleus, a friend is a person who is trustworthy and knows how to preserve not only the bonds of friendship, but also to uphold Orthodox truth (ἀξιόπιστος, ὃς οὐ μόνον φιλίας οἶδε φυλάττειν θεσμούς τε καὶ δίκαια, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς τῆς ἀληθείας ὅρους ἀσινεῖς διασώζειν).Footnote 47 In a letter to Giannoules (11 November 1632), Korydalleus elaborates upon the concept ‘friend’ and explains that expects his true friends to love with a pure heart both him and all the other friends (οὗτος ἀγαπώντας ἐμὲ ἀπὸ καθαρωτάτης διαθέσεως ἀγαπᾷ ὁμοίως καὶ ὅλους τοὺς ἐδικούς μας φίλους).Footnote 48 It is noteworthy that the leader of the party should always exercise the ability to distinguish between those who pretend to love him but have ulterior motives (‘false brothers’, ψευδαδέλφους) and those driven by a genuine desire to support his cause.Footnote 49

The group was animated by a set of shared ideals, principles, and values. What united Korydalleus’ followers, apart from their commitment to Orthodox faith as they understood it and their devotion to the authority of the master, is enunciated in a letter (1630) addressed to the theologian Georgios Koressios:Footnote 50 the qualities that unified the ‘friends’ are comparable character and habits, shared arguments, professional identity, agreement on dogmatic issues, and the fact that they are hated by common enemies and persecuted for these ideals (ὁμιλίας τὰς ἐκ νέων καὶ ὁμοτροπίας, λόγων κοινωνίαν, ταυτότητα ἐπαγγέλματος, δογμάτων σύμπνοιαν καὶ μυρία ὅσ’ ἄλλα, ἀλλὰ τό γε μισεῖσθαι τοῖς αὐτοῖς καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν αὐτῶν διώκεσθαι).Footnote 51 Korydalleus in a recommendation that he wrote for Giannoules in 1639, employs the metaphor of the blind who do not wish to see the light of truth, because they hate the most divine of all human things (οὕτως εἰσὶ τυφλοὶ περὶ τὸ φῶς): education and science.Footnote 52 This metaphor obviously goes back to the words of Christ in the Gospel of John, where the distinction between light and darkness is used, since those who know the truth walk in the light and are called ‘sons of light’ (John 12,36). The meaning of the metaphor is that Korydalleus’ opponents, the enemies of Loukaris and those opposing the rebirth of Orthodoxy, resent the light of education, science, and wisdom and are unholy and impious.

The political programme of Korydalleus’ group is epitomized in two terms: ‘education’ (παιδεία) and ‘virtue’ (ἀρετή). Education is equated with ‘science’ (ἐπιστήμη), which involves intellectual perfection and the knowledge of divine and human things (ἡ ἐπιστήμη τυγχάνει καὶ τελειότης νοός, ἣν καὶ γνῶσιν θείων καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων). Virtue is a multifaceted concept and, as in Aristotle's account, it denotes intellectual virtues, such as wisdom (σοφία) and magnanimity (μεγαλόνοια), as well as moral virtues, such as piety and holiness (ὁσιότης), dignity (σεμνότης), clemency (ἐπιείκεια), modesty (μετριοφροσύνη) and integrity (ἀκεραιότης). The members of the group were expected to exhibit those virtues, contrary to their opponents who were perceived to be crude, loathsome, licentious, disdainful, knavish, and malicious.Footnote 53 Education and virtue also appear as a slogan in a letter written in 1642: Korydalleus writes to Constantine Ioulianos that he plans to visit Constantinople to work for the consolidation of virtue and for the dissemination of education based on ancient texts and the model of the educational institutions in Italy (συνεργαζόμενον τὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς, καὶ εἴ τι τῶν φροντιστηρίων τε καὶ βίβλων παλαιῶν συνελεξάμην παιδείας τὰ δυνατὰ κοινωνήσοντα).Footnote 54 In summary, the term ‘virtue’ in Korydalleus’ lexicon clearly signifies the predominance of his own political party in the Patriarchate over their adversaries and those supported by the Catholics. The accession to the throne of Patriarch Parthenios II (1644) and the rumours about Korydalleus’ imminent return to Constantinople and the canonization of Cyril Loukaris showed that the followers of Korydalleus prevailed, even if they had to make concessions concerning some doctrinal issues by abandoning their pro-Calvinist beliefs.Footnote 55

For their personal safety Korydalleus and his adherents used methods akin to those employed by secret societies. Communication between of the master with the ‘friends’ who lived elsewhere was done through letters delivered by trusted individuals. These letters were not simple reflections of the self but tools of self-conscious image-building and they were meant to serve Korydalleus’ political and educational agenda. Most of the letters were composed in a rather allusive style, because enemies lurked everywhere.Footnote 56 The information contained in them is vague. Korydalleus remarks that the couriers would provide the necessary explanatory details to the recipients: ‘It is not necessary for me to say much about my own issues, because Nikolaos knows my own affairs as I do and he will speak like me’ (Δὲν εἶναι χρεία νὰ λέγω πολλὰ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ, ἐπειδὴ ὁ αὐθέντης Νικολὸς ξεύρει τἀμὰ ὡσὰν καὶ ἐγώ).Footnote 57 Communication via letters was not always secure: letters could be opened/intercepted or arrive late (καὶ ταῦτα ἀπεσφραγισμένα καὶ ὑπερήμερα).Footnote 58 In some of the letters, Korydalleus recommends a student or a friend to another friend or acquaintance and solicits their assistance, as the courier is a friend and a like-minded person (‘he is well aware of our connection’, οὐδὲ τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἡμῶν οἰκείωσιν ἀγνοῶν).Footnote 59 The names of some of the persons recommended are mentioned in the letters, such as Ioasaph, who was introduced to Païsios Metaxas, and Ioannes, who was presented to Koressios. The names of three trusted messengers are also recorded, namely Nikolaos Kyriakos, Maximos, and Pankratios.Footnote 60

The mastermind and leader of this group was Korydalleus himself, who with his teachings and writings advised his disciples and followers on various theoretical and practical issues. Korydalleus admitted new members to his group only after having scrutinized their beliefs and tested their dedication to the goals of the movement. He was constantly informed by his followers about political developments in the decision-making centres, particularly in Istanbul, Venice, and Rome. From the very beginning, he placed his group and himself at the service of Patriarch Loukaris and sought to contribute to the implementation of the reform programme and the protection of the Patriarch from local and foreign rivals.

Korydalleus’ circle was not a small or closed group but an extended network of allies whose common bond was the commitment to certain values and Korydalleus’ charismatic personality and devotion to Loukaris. In general, the mission of the movement was obvious and known to the Latin clerics and the Venetian authorities in Zakynthos. Korydalleus and his followers were keen to take firm action in order to confront their rivals: they castigated them in speeches and sermons as enemies of the Orthodox nation, and even resorted to violence. When the struggles between Korydalleus’ movement and the Catholics escalated, his followers turned against their most prominent opponents. A priest by the name Anthimos Skourtas who had been slandering Korydalleus was hounded and beaten by a seaman sent by Païsios Metaxas to the church of St Francis;Footnote 61 and the alumni of the Collegio Greco Antonios Raptopoulos and Ioannes Vamvakios were threatened with exile and death by Korydalleus’ followers (ἐξοστρακισμὸν ἡμῖν ἐπιβουλεύειν καὶ θάνατον).Footnote 62

The political opponents of Korydalleus are not named but are described in almost all of the letters as dangerous conspirators who hate the truth. In the first phase of party expansion, Korydalleus’ rivals were graduates of the Collegio Greco and Catholics of Greek ethnicity in Athens, Zakynthos, and Cephalonia. In their struggle against Korydalleus they were supported by Latin priests and bishops, while the Venetian administration seems to have been rather disengaged. In the second phase, when Korydalleus and his party extended their network in Constantinople, their opponents included Loukaris’ rivals, the Jesuits, the pro-Catholic hierarchs and the traditional Orthodox priests and teachers, such as the Patriarchs Athanasios Patelaros and Cyril II Kontares, Georgios Koressios, and Meletios Syrigos.

Korydalleus’ movement and the grandeur of ancient Greece

Korydalleus’ variant of Neo-Aristotelianism, free from the forms of Western Scholasticism, was animated by the ambition to establish a system of higher education based upon ancient Greek philosophy. In this way, the higher education of Greek-speaking population was designed to serve the creation of a distinct identity of the Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire over against the Latins and the Ottomans.Footnote 63 The two principal elements of this identity were Orthodox faith and the connection with ancient Greek language, literature, and philosophy. Korydalleus, with bitterness but also with pride, writes: ‘I yearn for the recalling of the ancient glory of our nation’ (τὴν ἀνάκλησιν τῆς παλαιᾶς εὐκλείας τοῦ ἡμετέρου γένους ἐπιποθῶν).Footnote 64 The ‘old glory’, as Korydalleus saw it, was integrally linked to the return to the Greek lands of education, wisdom, and science, all of which were preconditions for the happiness of the nation.

In his manual On Epistle Types the theoretical setting is rather Hellenic than Byzantine.Footnote 65 Korydalleus concentrated attention on Greek antiquity, embraced a classicizing approach, and employed the Attic dialect. On several occasions, he refers to Athens and its ancient glory as well as to ancient gods and personalities. He quotes passages from classical authors and makes very few references to Christian sources.Footnote 66 Furthermore, in his private correspondence and speeches, Korydalleus is explicit about the collective identity of his fellow Greeks, the Hellenes, as he calls them.Footnote 67 The cultural-geographic space of the Greeks, Hellas, the cradle of the Greeks, is equated with the sphere of the spiritual jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

A salient feature of Korydalleus’ thought is, as with most post-Byzantine thinkers, the contrast between the glorious past and the deplorable present.Footnote 68 He is proud of his nation but bemoans the overall decadence (τοῦ πανευγενοῦς ἀλλὰ δυστυχοῦς τῶν Ἑλλήνων γένους, Εἰς κοιμηθέντας 41, line 374). The lamentable condition of the nation is due to enslavement and the loss of political freedom, which, in Korydalleus’ mind, has led to the loss of spiritual freedom, moral decadence, and the erosion of values (εἰς τὴν κατάστασιν τοῦ δυστυχημένου τούτου καιροῦ, Εἰς κοιμηθέντας 42, lines 376–7). The loss of political freedom is the cause of the lack of education and ignorance: education has vanished from Greek lands and there is little engagement with the sciences (πρώτην ἡμῖν ταύτην τῶν ἑλλαδικῶν ὁρίων ὁ βάρβαρος ζυγὸς ἐξελήλακεν, Introd. Geogr. 447, lines 20–1). The lack of a distinct Greek Orthodox identity was, for Korydalleus, the corollary of the absence of an independent Orthodox education and the prevalence of the Catholic educational model. According to one of Korydalleus’ close disciples, the monk Eugenios Giannoules, it was imperative for the Greek Orthodox world to emancipate itself from the spiritual guidance of the Collegio Greco and the Jesuits. Korydalleus and his disciples considered this kind of educational dependence the prime factor that had led the Greeks to spiritual subservience:

Τοὺς κακοφαίνεται νὰ παιδευθῇ τινὰς ἀπὸ τὸ γένος μας εἰς ἄλλον τόπον ἔξω ἀπὸ τὴν Ῥώμην καὶ νὰ εἶναι ἐλεύθερος ἀπὸ τὸ φαρμακερὸν καὶ θολερὸν ποτὸν ἐδικόν τους⋅ διατὶ θέλουσι νὰ εἶναι πάντα ἠπατημένος καὶ δουλωμένος εἰς τὸν παπισμὸν καὶ νὰ μὴν εἶναι ἐλεύθερος νὰ κρένῃ τὴν ἀλήθειαν.Footnote 69

The Catholics are displeased that someone from our nation might be educated in a place other than Rome and be free from their poisonous and cloudy potion. This is because they want us always to be deceived and enslaved to Papal authority, so that we cannot discern and proclaim the truth.

Driven by a profound sense of duty towards his hometown and the Greek nation, Korydalleus decided to return to Athens on completing his studies in Padua in 1613. His plan was to convey to the Greeks the true philosophy and education of which he partook during his stay in Italy, notably Aristotelian philosophy through the study of the original Greek sources: ‘I despair of my beloved homeland, for the sake of which I left the excellent institutions and universities of Europe. Because of her I chose to suffer the yoke of tyranny instead of the sweetest freedom’ (ἀπέγνωσταί μοι πατρὶς ἡ φιλτάτη, ὑπὲρ ἧς τὰ κλεινά μοι παρῶπται Εὐρώπης μουσεῖα καὶ παιδευτήρια, καὶ ἧς ἕνεκα τυραννικὸν ἀνθειλόμην ζυγὸν τῆς γλυκυτάτης ἐλευθερίας, Ἐπιστ. τύπ. 65).Footnote 70 The programme to revive the ancient glory of the Greeks was animated by a classicist idealization of ancient Greek education. The concept genos does not solely connote a religious community adhering to a specific set of doctrines, but also evokes the notion of a national community. Korydalleus believed in some kind of ethnic continuity between ancient Greeks and the Greeks of his time: the Greeks were once as happy as they were wise (κλέος Ἑλλήνων, τῶν ποτὲ εὐδαιμόνων οὐχ ἧττον ἢ καὶ σοφῶν, Introd. Geogr. 449, lines 53–4); again, Korydalleus wishes Koressios to heal in soul and body the Greeks, who were once the most glorious in both (ὡς ἂν καὶ ῥωννύῃς κατά τε ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα τούς ποτ’ εὐκλεεστάστους ἐν ἑκατέροις Ἕλληνας).Footnote 71

On the other hand, there is no evidence that Korydalleus’ party was committed to the idea of independence or statehood for the Greek nation. Nowhere in his texts is there any reference to revolutionary action against the Ottomans, even though he describes their rule as ‘barbaric’ and ‘tyrannical’ and makes extensive use of the yoke metaphor to describe the enslavement of the Greeks.Footnote 72 Korydalleus associates the Venetian Republic with freedom and the progress of education and culture, as evidenced by the fact that he decided to live and teach in Venice and Venetian-ruled Zakynthos and that he stayed in Constantinople only as long as it was necessary for the implementation of his educational activities at the Patriarchal Academy or for the active support of Loukaris.

Korydalleus mentions the Ottoman sultans and senior officials (οἱ κρατοῦντες, the sovereigns/rulers), the Imperial Court (τὰ βασίλεια), the highest authority (ἡ μεγίστη ἀρχή), and the ruling dynasty over the Christians (ἡ κατὰ Χριστιανῶν ἀρχικὴ δυναστεία).Footnote 73 These terms are generic and politically neutral. But the Ottoman sovereigns are depicted as erratic and authoritarian in their behaviour towards the Orthodox population. It is noteworthy that Korydalleus applied the term ‘tyrannical’ to Loukaris’ rivals, especially Kontares and the faction that prevailed over Loukaris.Footnote 74 In this sense, the term emphasizes the practice of oppression and persecution of political opponents.

The yoke metaphor is a recurrent motif in post-Byzantine literature,Footnote 75 but Korydalleus’ programme is a far cry from a call for revolutionary action and the liberation of the Greek nation. In general, he advocates loyalty and aligns himself with the attitude of the Ecumenical Patriarchate toward the Ottoman authorities. The Patriarchate had developed various strategies for interacting with the Ottoman administration in order to showcase its fidelity and guarantee the survival of both the Church and the Orthodox flock.Footnote 76

The leaders of the Greek community and Korydalleus’ movement

Korydalleus was aware that in order to achieve his objectives he must enlist the support of powerful individuals in Constantinople. By the seventeenth century, the Ecumenical Patriarchate had co-opted a group of wealthy persons with political influence, who held honorary high offices at the Patriarchal Court. The mandate of the ‘officials’ (ὀφφικιάλιοι) of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was to manage together with the churchmen the public affairs of the Orthodox nation.Footnote 77 Korydalleus in two key texts refers to the chief characteristics which the political leaders of the Greek nation should epitomize. These sources are the letter accompanying the Introduction to Geography which Korydalleus dedicated to the nobleman Skarlatos (1622), and the Funeral speech for Poulcheria (1640), which contains an encomium for her father, the notable Grand Ecclesiarch Michael Vlastos.

Those two men were from Korydalleus’ point of view exemplary statesmen and leaders of the Greek community thanks to their ability to navigate Ottoman political life for the benefit of their own people. Skarlatos (†1630) had acquired great wealth thanks to his role in the provisioning of sheep for the Ottoman court and army. He also maintained close ties to the rulers of the Romanian principalities, especially Radu Mihnea, the ruler of Moldavia.Footnote 78 According to Catholic diplomats in Constantinople, Skarlatos sympathized with Loukaris’ pro-Protestant milieu rather than pro-Catholic circles.Footnote 79 Michael Vlastos was appointed to senior positions in the Patriarchate, such as the office of the Grand Ecclesiarch (1639–40), by Patriarch Parthenios I. From Korydalleus’ speech it is possible to infer that Vlastos was a consistent supporter of Loukaris’ reform programme: in turbulent times he honoured virtue, was the foe of envy and trickery and upheld the truth (εἰς τοὺς καιροὺς τοὺς ἐδικούς μας […] νὰ μισήσῃ τοσοῦτον τὴν κακίαν, νὰ τιμήσῃ τὴν ἀρετήν, νὰ ἀνατρέψῃ φθόνον, νὰ ἐλέγξῃ δόλιον ἦθος καὶ νὰ στηρίξῃ καὶ νὰ παρησιασθῇ τὴν ἀλήθειαν, Εἰς κοιμηθέντας lines 365–8).Footnote 80 As noted earlier, the terms ‘virtue’ and ‘truth’ are key concepts of Korydalleus’ political agenda.

These two fascinating texts by Korydalleus spell out the qualities requisite in leaders in a position to meet the challenges of that critical period and to promote his political-educational movement. Korydalleus urges both Skarlatos and Vlastos to support Greek philosophical education. His references to Skarlatos are couched in Plato's allegory about the wandering of the soul in heaven and evoke the powerful metaphor of the chariot of the soul in the Phaedrus (246e–248c): Zeus is leading the parade of the Gods on his winged chariot, and the souls are following him in heaven. Skarlatos’ soul is among those which have seen the true essence of things, the beauty of the intellect (ἡ κάλλους τοῦ νοεροῦ θεωρία), and he has been initiated into the mysteries (τὰ ὄργια) of wisdom reaching its highest grade of initiation (ἐποπτεία). According to the Platonic conception, the soul of Skarlatos was sent to the world to guide the afflicted Greeks towards beauty and goodness (μοχθοῦσιν εἰς κόσμον καταπεμφθεῖσαν τοῖς Ἕλλησι χρῆσθαι βουλομένοις ἐπὶ τὰ καλὰ ποδηγέτιδι).Footnote 81

In his praise of Michael Vlastos, Korydalleus offers a succinct description of the desirable traits of a Greek Orthodox leader, fashioned after the encomia of Gregory the Theologian, notably the Funebris in laudem Caesarii fratris oratio (orat. 7) and the Funebris oratio in patrem (orat. 18). The leader should exhibit intelligence and magnanimity in order to be able to perform great deeds. Additionally, he should display high spirit, mildness, affability, serenity in his physical presence and demeanour, fervour, zeal, moderation but also decisiveness in his actions, self-restraint in both good and difficult moments, and prudence. Furthermore, he should be characterized by kindness of soul and brave mind, moral integrity, parsimony, and the courage to speak truth to power.Footnote 82

Korydalleus’ vision of the ideal statesman is a corollary of his political agenda. In his praise of Skarlatos and Vlastos, he emphasizes their relationship with education: those two powerful men are actuated by love for philosophy and zeal for learning and scientific pursuits and promote the revival of the philosophical education of the Greeks.Footnote 83 Korydalleus notes that he was encouraged by Skarlatos to write a treatise that would be a summary in the vernacular of the main aspects of ancient astronomy and geography for the benefit of his disciples in Constantinople (εὐθὺς εἰς γνῶσιν ἵκοιο τούτου παρ’ ἐμοῦ αἰτῆσαι ἠξίωσας, Introd. Geogr. 448, lines 34–44 [40–1]). It seems that Korydalleus strengthened Skarlatos and his family's dedication to Hellenic education since 1622 (χαίρεις μὲν ἀνδράσι […] πεπαιδευμένοις ὁμιλῶν λιπαρῶς τ’ ἔχεις τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῶν κατ’ ἐκείνους συγγραμμάτων⋅ […] φιλόσοφον δόγμα ἢ ἄκουσμα ξυνιέναι περὶ πλείστου ποιῇ, Introd. Geogr. 448, lines 34–37). In the mansion of Skarlatos’ son-in-law, Demetrios Ioulianos, Korydalleus delivered a speech on Pseudo-Proclus’ Sphere (ὁ διδάσκαλος ὑπέσχετο σαφηνίσαι ἡμῖν τὸ περὶ Σφαίρας τοῦ Πρόκλου συνταγμάτιον), which was attended by many invitees.Footnote 84

Korydalleus’ views on the current political situation, the relations with the Ottoman authorities and the role of the Greek leaders are connected with the practical implementation of his agenda. The leaders of the Greeks should, according to Korydalleus, be a role model for others: they should support the rebirth of Hellenic education in word and deed. In an era of political oppression and conflicts within the Church, Korydalleus sought to urge those who were powerful and wealthy and were associated with the Patriarchate, to assume a leading role. These men should be protectors, supporters and defenders of the ‘all-noble but unfortunate nation of the Hellenes’ (προστασία, στήριγμα καὶ ὀχύρωμα τοῦ πανευγενοῦς, ἀλλὰ δυστυχοῦς τῶν Ἑλλήνων γένους).Footnote 85 They should give practical support to the Patriarchate, afflicted as it was by discord and the abuses of the Ottomans. Furthermore, Korydalleus advocates the involvement of Greek noblemen in the Ottoman administration. A few years later, the political leaders of the Orthodox community were appointed to senior posts in the Ottoman government: Panagiotes Nikousios (1613–73) and Alexander Mavrocordatos (1641–1709) were appointed as Grand Dragomans of the Sublime Porte, ‘a high office carrying the duties of a minister of foreign affairs, which was habitually reserved to members of this group’ (i.e. the leaders of Greek community of Constantinople).Footnote 86

Conclusion

Korydalleus’ movement was driven by a realistic assessment of the situation in Southeastern Europe: the lack of education, learning and science accounted for the miserable condition, illiteracy, and ignorance of the Greeks. His goal was to improve the situation of his nation, to support the Ecumenical Patriarchate and to counter Roman Catholic propaganda. He believed that the sole means to achieve those objectives were the development of Greek Orthodox higher education intended to revive the old glory of the Greeks. Korydalleus and his followers worked with zeal and determination to implement their programme and employed various methods – albeit not always legitimate, peaceful or fair. They helped their friends and followers obtain positions of power (bishops, patriarchs, lay officials) in order to control the Church and the political leadership of the Orthodox community. Korydalleus often sent envoys to co-opt new party members and received intelligence from his close associates about the situation in the Ottoman capital and elsewhere. His movement, moreover, endeavoured to restructure the curriculum of the schools in the Orthodox East, especially in the Patriarchal Academy, by promoting philosophical education and teaching Greek letters. They exposed and denounced pro-Catholic Greeks and promoted Loukaris’ reform movement through their writings. By advocating the need to reconnect with the ancient Greek past, Korydalleus sought to forge a new Greek identity that would be indebted to ancient Greek philosophy, the Greek language, and his own distinctive interpretation of Orthodox teachings.

Vasileios Tsiotras is adjunct lecturer and post-doctoral researcher at the School of Philosophy and Education, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. He has taught ancient Greek literature, history of science, and palaeography courses at the University of Thessaly and the Aristotle University. He is a counsellor for the new national curricula of the Ministry of Education. Tsiotras’ teaching and research interests converge on classical studies, palaeography and history of higher education in the Greek-speaking Orthodox East, especially Constantinople, during the Ottoman era. Tsiotras has published The Exegetical Tradition of Claudius Ptolemy's Geography (in Greek, Athens 2006) and his work has appeared in Greek and international peer-reviewed journals.

Vasileios Syros is full professor and the holder of the Greek Chair at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He also serves as the Director of the Early Modern Greek Culture Program at The Medici Archive Project (Florence) and holds a concurrent appointment as Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for European Global Studies at the University of Basel. His teaching and research interests revolve around the history of medieval and early modern political thought (Christian, Islamic, and Jewish traditions) as well as the presence and activities of Greek communities in early modern Italy.

References

1 Kitromilides, P. M., Enlightenment and Revolution: The Making of Modern Greece (Cambridge, Mass. 2013) 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the Patriarchal Academy, see T. A. Gritsopoulos, Πατριαρχικὴ Μεγάλη τοῦ Γένους Σχολή (Athens 1966).

2 Z. N. Tsirpanles, Τὸ Ἑλληνικὸ Κολλέγιο τῆς Ρώμης καὶ οἱ μαθητές του (1576–1700). Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη τῆς μορφωτικῆς πολιτικῆς τοῦ Βατικανοῦ (Thesssaloniki 1980).

3 G. Hering, Οἰκουμενικὸ Πατριαρχεῖο καὶ εὐρωπαϊκὴ πολιτικὴ 1620–38, tr. D. Kourtovik (Athens 1992).

4 Schmitt, C. B., Cesare Cremonini, un aristotelico al tempo di Galilei (Venice 1980)Google Scholar; Del Torre, Μ. Α., Studi su Cesare Cremonini. Cosmologia e logica nel tardo aristotelismo padovano (Padua 1968)Google Scholar.

5 Kitromilides, Enlightenment and Revolution, 27.

6 Tsourkas, C., Les débuts de l'enseignement philosophique et de la libre pensée dans les Balkans. La vie et l’œuvre de Théophile Corydalée, 2nd edn (Thessaloniki 1967)Google Scholar.

7 Such as Iosepos Moisiodax (1725–1800), Demetrios Katartzes (1730–1807) and Constantine Koumas (1777–1836). See N. K. Psimmenos, Ἡ ἑλληνικὴ φιλοσοφία ἀπὸ τὸ 1453 ὡς τὸ 1821. Ἀνθολογία κειμένων μὲ εἰσαγωγὴ καὶ σχόλια, I (Athens 1988) 177–8.

8 Henderson, G. P., The Revival of Greek Thought, 1620–1830 (Edinburgh 1971) 12–19Google Scholar; Kitromilides, Enlightenment and Revolution, 27–8; M. Patiniotis, Στοιχεῖα φυσικῆς φιλοσοφίας, Ὁ ἑλληνικὸς ἐπιστημονικὸς στοχασμὸς τὸν 17ο καὶ 18ο αἰώνα (Athens 2013) 174.

9 C. Mertzios, ‘Θεόφιλος ὁ Κορυδαλεὺς ὁ Ἀθηναῖος’, Τὰ Ἀθηναϊκὰ 11 (1958) 9–14; Tsirpanles, Κολλέγιο, 390–4; and esp. T. I. Papadopoulos, ‘Δράση Θεοφίλου Κορυδαλλέως στὴ घάκυνθο – σχέσεις του μὲ Νικόδημο Μεταξᾶ’, Μνημοσύνη 14 (1998–2000) 33–82.

10 Μ. Gedeon, ‘Θεοφίλου τοῦ Κορυδαλλέως, Ἐπιστολαὶ ἀνέκδοτοι τρεῖς’, Ὁ Κόσμος 1 (1883) 473–4; G. Pentogalos, ‘Παΐσιος Μεταξᾶς (Στοιχεῖα γιὰ τὴν ἱστορία τῆς νεοελληνικῆς φιλοσοφίας τοῦ 16ου καὶ 17ου αἰώνα)’, Παρνασσὸς 14 (1972) 530–2; Tsourkas, Débuts, 353–84; I. E. Stephanes and N. Papatriantaphyllou-Theodoridi, Εὐγενίου Γιαννούλη τοῦ Αἰτωλοῦ ἐπιστολές, κριτικὴ ἔκδοση (Thessaloniki 1992) 491–6; I. E. Stephanes, ‘Ἡ αὐτόγραφη ἐπιστολὴ τοῦ Θεοφίλου Κορυδαλλέα πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννη Καρυοφύλλη’, Ἑλληνικὰ 37 (1986) 160–3; idem, ‘Πέντε ἀνέκδοτες ἐπιστολὲς τοῦ Θεοφίλου Κορυδαλλέως’, Ἑλληνικὰ 42 (1991–2) 103–13; as well as the following studies by V. Tsiotras: ‘Αὐτόγραφη ἐπιστολὴ τοῦ Θεοφίλου Κορυδαλλέως πρὸς τὸν Antoine Léger’, Ὁ Ἐρανιστὴς 20 (1995) 235–42; ‘Tρεῖς ἀνέκδοτες ἐπιστολὲς τοῦ Θεοφίλου Κορυδαλλέως καὶ οἱ ἀριστοτελικὲς πηγές τους’, Ὁ Ἐρανιστὴς 24 (2003) 11–27; ‘Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαῖος καὶ Θεόφιλος Κορυδαλλεύς: Τὰ ἀστρολογικὰ κείμενα’, Σιναϊτικὰ Ἀνάλεκτα Α΄: Πρακτικὰ συνεδρίου “Τὸ Σινὰ διὰ μέσου τῶν αἰώνων” (Athens 2002) 171–208; Ἡ ἐξηγητικὴ παράδοση τῆς Γεωγραφικῆς Ὑφηγήσεως τοῦ Κλαύδιου Πτολεμαίου. Οἱ ἐπώνυμοι σχολιαστές (Athens 2006) 238–9, 242–3, 447–9.

11 Stephanes and Papatriantaphyllou, Ἐπιστολές, 493 (epistle 14).

12 Tsiotras, ‘Τρεῖς ἐπιστολές’, 18–22; V. Tsiotras, ‘Ὁ Εἰς κοιμηθέντας λόγος τοῦ Θεοφίλου Κορυδαλλέως καὶ ἡ ἀριστοτελικὴ περὶ ψυχῆς θεματική του’, Ὁ Ἐρανιστὴς 29 (2016) 5–45 (22–3).

13 Compare Gritsopoulos, Πατριαρχικὴ σχολή, 175–6; Tsourkas, Débuts, 96–7.

14 Tsourkas, Débuts, 97n. 2.

15 See n. 10 above.

16 Tsiotras, Ἐξηγητικὴ παράδοση, 447–9 (thereafter Introd. Geogr.).

17 Τοῦ σοφωτάτου κυρίου Θεοφίλου Κορυδαλλέως Περὶ ἐπιστολικῶν τύπων, ed. N. Metaxas, 1st edn (London 1625). See T. I. Papadopoulos, Ἑλληνικὴ βιβλιογραφία (1466 ci.–1800), I (Athens 1984) 237.

18 Tsiotras, ‘Εἰς κοιμηθέντας’, 13–16.

19 Stephanes and Papatriantaphyllou, Ἐπιστολές, 494–5 (epistle 15).

20 Kitromilides, Enlightenment and Revolution, 27.

21 Tsirpanles, Κολλέγιο, 391.

22 Kitromilides, Enlightenment and Revolution, 26; Patiniotes, Στοιχεῖα, 115.

23 Patiniotes, Στοιχεῖα, 99–102.

24 Kennedy, L. A., ‘Cesare Cremonini and the immortality of the human soul’, Vivarium 18 (1980) 143–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. Sangalli, ‘Cesare Cremoni, la Compagnia di Gesù e la Repubblica di Venezia: eterodossia e protezione politica’, in E. Riondato and A. Poppi (eds), Cesare Cremonini. Aspetti del pensiero e scritti, I (Padua 2000) 207–18.

25 In cod. Athen. Benaki Museum 93, ff. 114r–v: 1617 ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, μηνὸς Μαιμακτηριῶνος, ὀγδόη φθίνοντος; see Ε. Lappa-Zizeka and Μ. Rizou-Κouroupou, Κατάλογος ἑλληνικῶν χειρογράφων τοῦ Μουσείου Μπενάκη 10ος–16ος αἰώνας (Athens 1991) 177–85 (181).

26 Papadopoulos, ‘Δράση’, 66: νὰ σκεπάσῃ τὴν πολυθρύλιτόν του ἀθεΐαν […] διὰ τὸ ὁποῖον ἦτον διωγμένος ἀπὸ τὸν πατριάρχην κὺρ Τιμόθεον […]⋅ ἐδιώχθη καὶ ἀπὸ αὐτὴν τὴν πατρίδα του, διὰ νὰ τὸν ἐγνωρίσουν ἄθεον καὶ ἐχθρὸν τοῦ θεοῦ […] τοῦτα ὁποὺ λέγω, ἡμποροῦσι νὰ μοῦ τὰ συμμαρτυρήσουν οἱ ἴδιοι οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι. Korydalleus’ persecution by Timotheos is not attested by any other source. According to Hering, Οἰκουμενικὸ πατριαρχεῖο, 42–6, Timotheos planned the elimination of Loukaris and his followers.

27 Nikodemos Metaxas’ letter to Antonios Raptopoulos (Cephalonia, 18 September 1621): Papadopoulos, ‘Δράση’, 65–7 (66).

28 Anthimos Skourtas’ letter to Pope Urban VIII (Zakynthos, 13 April 1629); Papadopoulos, ‘Δράση’, 69–73 (70).

29 G. Podskalsky, Griechische Theologie in der Zeit der Türkenherrschaft (1453–1821). Die Orthodoxie im Spannungsfeld der nachreformatorischen Konfessionen des Westens (Munich 1988) 194–9 (197–8); Hering, Οἰκουμενικὸ Πατριαρχεῖο, 212–46; Patiniotes, Στοιχεῖα, 108–11, 153, refers to Loukaris’ theological fundamentalism.

30 Podskalsky, Theologie, 197–8; Tsiotras, ‘Τρεῖς ἐπιστολές’, 15–16.

31 Korydalleus’ letter to Giannoules (Constantinople, 1639/40): Tsiotras, ‘Τρεῖς ἐπιστολές’, 23–4 (epistle 1).

32 Papadopoulos, ‘Δράση’, 3–50; V. Tsiotras, ‘Πολύπους ἐναντίον πύθωνος. Μία μαρτυρία γιὰ τὴ δράση τοῦ Θεοφίλου Κορυδαλλέως στὴ घάκυνθο’, in Πρακτικὰ τοῦ Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου, Ἅγιοι καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικὲς προσωπικότητες στὴ घάκυνθο’ (घάκυνθος 6–9 Νοεμβρίου 1997), Ι (Athens 1999) 313–26.

33 Pentogalos, ‘Παΐσιος’, 532–3.

34 Περὶ ἐπιστολικῶν τύπων, 60–2 (epistle 1).

35 Tsourkas, Débuts, 49–60, 67–71; Gritsopoulos, Πατριαρχικὴ σχολή, 162–7; Podskalsky, Theologie, 195.

36 The proemium has been edited by Tsiotras, ‘Τρεῖς ἐπιστολές’, 26–7. The full text of Karyophylles’ treatise is included in cod. Athen. Benaki Museum 93, ff. 48r–60v.

37 Tsourkas, Débuts, 67–8n.3.

38 K. Sathas, Νεοελληνικὴ Φιλολογία: Βιογραφίαι τῶν ἐν τοῖς γράμμασι διαλαμψάντων Ἑλλήνων, ἀπὸ τῆς καταλύσεως τῆς βυζαντινῆς αὐτοκρατορίας μέχρι τῆς ἑλληνικῆς ἐθνεγερσίας (1453–1821) (Athens 1868) 250–2; Tsourkas, Débuts, 68–71.

39 Syrigos had been a member of Loukaris’ party since 1630 while a preacher at the Chrysopege church in Galata, but defected to Kontares’ faction in 1637; Podskalsky, Theologie, 207–13 (207–9).

40 Ἐδόθη ἐν τῷ Πατριαρχικῷ οἰκήματι τῷ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει, Μηνὸς Αὐγούστου 5, ἐν ἔτει 1640, in Ἀδὰμ घοιρνικαβίου αἱ λοιπαὶ δώδεκα τῶν ιθ΄ πραγματειῶν τῶν περὶ τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, ΙΙ (St Petersburg 1797) 742–52 (749).

41 Korydalleus’ letter to Constantine Ioulianos (Athens, October 1642), which is preserved in cod. Chios Library ‘Koraes’ 16 (1557), f. 35r; A. Tselikas, Τὰ βυζαντινὰ καὶ μεταβυζαντινὰ χειρόγραφα τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Χίου ‘Ὁ Κοραής’ (Athens 1984) 33–50 (37).

42 Stephanes and Papatriantaphyllou-Theodoridi, Ἐπιστολές, 497 (epistle 17): Karyophylles wrote to Giannoules (1641): ὑγιαίνομεν μεμονωμένοι, ὡς οἴδατε, λύπην τοκέων ὁσημέραι ἀποσοβεῖν πειρώμενοι.

43 Tsourkas, Débuts, 78–80.

44 Stephanes and Papatriantaphyllou-Theodoridi, Ἐπιστολές, 497 (epistle 17).

45 Korydalleus’ disciple Germanos Lokros noted that Korydalleus had surpassed the contemporary Italian philosophers and that he was on par with the ancient Greeks: ἦν δ’ οὗτος ἄκρος εἰς φιλοσοφίαν ὑπερακοντικώς, οὐ μόνον πάντως τῶν ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ φιλοσοφούντων, ἀλλὰ δὴ καὶ Ἑλλήνων τῶν ἡμετέρων οὐ κατόπιν ἰών: Tsourkas, Débuts, 78–9n.5.

46 Karyophylles wrote in cod. Athen. Benaki Museum 93, ff. 104v-105r, τὸν ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν σοφώτατον Θεόφιλον τὸν Κορυδαλλέα (Tsiotras, ‘Πολύπους’, 321); in cod. Athen. Metochii St. Sepulchri 553, p. 560, τὴν ἀποβίωσιν τοῦ σοφωτάτου καὶ εὐσεβεστάτου Κορυδαλλέως; in cod. Ankara TTK Syllogos 10, f. 186r, ὡς κἀν τοῖς Τύποις τοῦ σοφωτάτου προεδιδάχθημεν. See also Giannoules, who transcribed Ἐπιστολαὶ τοῦ ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν σοφωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου κυρίου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ Κορυδαλλέως in cod. Paris. Suppl. Gr. 1044, f. 25r.

47 To Païsios Metaxas (Venice, 1629): Gedeon, ‘’Eπιστολαί’, 473–4.

48 Stephanes and Papatriantaphyllou-Theodoridi, Ἐπιστολές, 493 (epistle 14).

49 Letter to Léger (13 June 1634) in Tsiotras, ‘Ἐπιστολὴ Léger’, 240–1: multas quotidie a ψευδαποστόλοις et ψευδαδέλφοις sustinere molestias conguntur.

50 Koressios was a physician and teacher (ἰατροφιλόσοφος) from Chios, who became involved in doctrinal debates with Protestant theologians, and especially with Antoine Léger in 1630/1, but soon turned against Loukaris and Korydalleus: Podskalsky, Theologie, 183–9 (184–8).

51 Tsiotras, ‘Τρεῖς ἐπιστολές’, 24–5 (epistle 2).

52 Stephanes and Papatriantaphyllou-Theodoridi, Ἐπιστολές, 494–5 (epistle 15).

53 Ibid., 494: Τίς γὰρ συμφωνία σοφίας πρὸς ἀπαιδευσίαν, μεγαλονοίας πρὸς ἄνοιαν, ὁσιότητος πρὸς ἀσέβειαν; Πῶς γὰρ φίλα γένοιτ' ἂν σεμνότης καὶ βδελυρία, ἀσέλγεια καὶ ἐπιείκεια, ὑπεροψία καὶ μετριοφροσύνη, πανουργία καὶ ἀκεραιότης καὶ ὅλως κακία καὶ ἀρετή.

54 See above n. 41.

55 Tsourkas, Débuts, 84–5.

56 Τῶν ἐχθρῶν […], οἵ με περιστοιχίζονται πολλάκις τῆς ἡμέρας ὡς τὰ ἀλκιμώτατα τῶν θηρίων οἱ δεινοὶ θηρευταί, ἐκ συλλαβῶν ὡς ἐξ ἰχνῶν ἐπιλαβέσθαι μου τῆς ἐννοίας καὶ κατ’ ἐμοῦ τινας σκευωρίας συγκλῶσαι γλιχόμενοι: Stephanes and Papatriantaphyllou-Theodoridi, Ἐπιστολές, 491 (epistle 12).

57 Stephanes and Papatriantaphyllou-Theodoridi, Ἐπιστολές, 493–4 (epistle 14).

58 Περὶ ἐπιστολικῶν τύπων, 65–6 (66) (epistle 4); Stephanes and Papatriantaphyllou-Theodoridi, Ἐπιστολές, 491 (epistle 12): ἄλλωστε καὶ πιστεῦσαι γράμμασιν οὐκ ἀσφαλές.

59 Tsiotras, ‘Τρεῖς ἐπιστολές’, 24 (epistle 2).

60 Stephanes, ‘Πέντε ἐπιστολές’, 111 (epistle 3); Tsiotras, ‘Τρεῖς ἐπιστολές’, 24–5 (epistle 2); Gedeon, ‘Ἐπιστολαί’, 473–4; Stephanes and Papatriantaphyllou-Theodoridi, Ἐπιστολές, 491 (epistle 12), 493–4 (epistle 14).

61 Papadopoulos, ‘Δράση’, 41–50 (42); Stephanes, ‘Πέντε ἐπιστολές’, 106.

62 As Ioannes Vamvakios noted in a letter (ca. 1630/2) to Ioannes Mathaios Karyophylles: Tsiotras, ‘Πολύπους’, 319 (62–71), 321.

63 Patiniotes, Στοιχεῖα, 150; Kitromilides, Enlightenment and Revolution, 26–8; E. Nicolaidis, ‘Ὀρθοδοξία, “Θρηκευτικὸς οὐμανισμὸς” καὶ Διαφωτισμός: Οἱ ἐπιστῆμες στὸν ἑλληνισμὸ τοῦ 18ου αἰώνα’, Νεῦσις 1 (1994) 99–120 (102); Nicolaidis, E., Delli, E., Livanos, N., Tampakis, K., and Vlahakis, G., ‘Science and Orthodox Christianity: an overview’, Isis 107 (2016) 542–66 (556)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

64 Stephanes and Papatriantaphyllou-Theodoridi, Ἐπιστολές, 495 (epistle 15).

65 Karpozilou, M., ‘The epistolarion of Theophilos Korydaleus’, Ἑλληνικὰ 49 (1999) 289–93 (291)Google Scholar.

66 Karpozilou, ‘Epistolarion’, 291–2.

67 Introd. Geogr. 447, lines 12, 19, 449, line 53; Εἰς κοιμηθέντας 41, line 374; Tsiotras, ‘Τρεῖς ἐπιστολές’, 25 (epistle 2); Περὶ ἐπιστολικῶν τύπων, 61; Stephanes and Papatriantaphyllou-Theodoridi, Ἐπιστολές, 494, (epistle 15). For the prevalence of the term Hellenes in the late Byzantine and post-Byzantine discourse, see Steiris, G., ‘History and religion as sources of Hellenic identity in late Byzantium and the post-Byzantine era’, Genealogy 4 (2020) 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar (https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy 4010016) (last accessed 27 February 2022).

68 E. Angelomati-Tsougkaraki, ‘Ἐμεῖς οἱ Ἕλληνες ἀφοὺ ἐχάσαμε τὸ βασίλειο, ἐχάσαμεν ὅλα, Πῶς αὐτοπροσδιορίζονται οἱ ὑπὸ ξένη κυριαρχία Ἕλληνες: ἡ μαρτυρία τῶν κειμένων’ in O. Katsiardi-Hering et al. (eds), Ἕλλην, Ρωμηός, Γραικός, Συλλογικοὶ προσδιορισμοὶ καὶ ταυτότητες (Athens 2018) 247–65 (252).

69 S. Lampros, ‘Βίος Εὐγενίου Ἰωαννουλίου τοῦ Αἰτωλοῦ ὑπὸ Ἀναστασίου Γορδίου’, Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων 4 (1907) 27–82 (48).

70 Henderson, Revival, 13; Patiniotes, Στοιχεῖα, 112.

71 Tsiotras, ‘Τρεῖς ἐπιστολές’, 25 (epistle 2, lines 20–21).

72 Τυραννικὸν ἀνθειλόμην ζυγόν, Περὶ ἐπιστολικῶν τύπων, 65; ὁ βάρβαρος ζυγὸς ἐξελήλακεν, Introd. Geogr. 447, lines 20–21.

73 Εἰς κοιμηθέντας 41, line 372; Introd. Geogr. 448, lines 25–6.

74 Stephanes and Papatriantaphyllou-Theodoridi, Ἐπιστολές, 495 (epistle 15): τούτοις γὰρ ἅπασι συνίσταται τὸ τυραννικὸν κράτος.

75 I. K. Chassiotes, ‘Ἀναζητώντας ἐσωτερικὲς καὶ ἐξωτερικὲς μαρτυρίες γιὰ τὸν ἐθνικὸ προσδιορισμὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων κατὰ τὴν πρώιμη τουρκοκρατία’, in Katsiardi-Hering, et al. (eds), Ἕλλην, Ρωμηός, Γραικός, 299–316 (309).

76 Kitromilides, P. M., Religion and Politics in the Orthodox World. The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Challenges of Modernity (New York 2019) 26–8Google Scholar; D. Apostolopoulos, ‘Ρωμιοὶ χριστιανοί … μὲ μπαράτια βασιλικά. Τὸ θέμα τῆς πολιτικῆς συνείδησης’, in Γιὰ τοὺς Φαναριῶτες, Δοκιμὲς ἑρμηνείας καὶ μικρὰ ἀναλυτικά (Athens 2003) 45–60.

77 J. Darrouzès, Recherches sur les ὀφφίκια de l’Église byzantine (Paris 1970); M. Gedeon, ‘Ἀξιωματικοὶ (ὀφφικιάλιοι) τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριαρχείου (1500–1880)’, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἀλήθεια 5 (1883–4) 586–8.

78 Alexander, Mihnea's son and ruler of Wallachia (1627), married Skarlatos’ daughter Roxandra. The chroniclers of the time record Skarlatos’ lucrative financial activities and the exceptional favour he enjoyed from the Ottoman court in recognition of his services: Μ. Theochari, ‘Ὁ Ἐπιτάφιος τοῦ Παναγίου Τάφου’, Θεολογία 41 (1970) 690–702; Tsourkas, Débuts, 166–7n.2; D. Apostolopoulos, ‘Διδάσκοντας φυσιολογία τὸν 18ο αἰώνα στὴν Κωνσταντινούπολη’, in Γιὰ τοὺς Φαναριῶτες, 83–104 (92–3n.29, 33); Tsiotras, Ἐξηγητικὴ παράδοση, 238–9, 242–4; he provided financial support to Moldavian and Wallachian princes and ‘his voice was listened by the Grand Vizier’. See R. G. Păun, ‘“Well-born of the Polis”. The Ottoman conquest and the reconstruction of the Greek Orthodox elites under Ottoman rule (15th–17th centuries)’, in R. Born and S. Jagodzinski (eds), Türkenkriege und Adelskultur in Ostmitteleuropa vom 16.–18. Jahrhundert (Leipzig 2014) 59–85 (63).

79 Păun, ‘Well-born of the Polis’, 80n.50.

80 He was also appointed δικαιοφύλαξ (1642–50) and πρωτέκδικος (1648): Μ. Gedeon, Ἰστορία τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ πενήτων 1453–1913 (Athens 1939) 110; Tsiotras, ‘Εἰς κοιμηθέντας’, 15n.21.

81 Introd. Geogr. 447–8, lines 7–33. See further C. Riedweg, Mysterienterminologie bei Platon, Philon und Klemens von Alexandrien (Berlin 1987) 22–6, 37–46.

82 Εἰς κοιμηθέντας 40–2 §§ 51–5.

83 Introd. Geogr. 447–8 §§ 5–7 (αὐτὸς δὲ οὐ μόνον ἐζηλώκεις ἀποῦσαν); Stephanes and Papatriantaphyllou-Theodoridi, Ἐπιστολές, 495–6 (epistle 15).

84 In this letter written by Demetrios’ son, Constantine, Ioannes Karyophylles was invited to attend the lecture: M. Gedeon, ‘Ἀνέκδοτοι ἐπιστολαὶ ἀρχαίων διδασκάλων τοῦ Γένους’, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἀλήθεια 3 (1882–3) 423–5 (423–4).

85 Εἰς κοιμηθέντας 41–2 § 55; Introd. Geogr. 447 § 1; G. Tzedopoulos, ‘Χριστιανός, μουσουλμάνος, Ἕλλην, Τοῦρκος: Ταυτότητα καὶ διαμεσολάβηση στὴ Διάλεξιν τοῦ Παναγιωτάκη Νικούσιου μὲ τὸν Vani Efendi’, in Katsiardi-Hering,Ἕλλην, Ρωμηός, Γραικός, 329–43.

86 Kitromilides, Enlightenment and Revolution, 29; Damien Janos, ‘Panaiotis Nicousios and Alexander Mavrocordatos: the rise of the Phanariots and the office of Grand Dragoman in the Ottoman administration in the second half of the seventeenth century’, in G. Hazai (ed.), Mélanges en l'honneur d'Elizabeth A. Zachariadou (Wiesbaden 2006) 249–62; Păun, ‘Well-born of the Polis’, 64–6.